It is currently 20 Sep 2017, 13:19

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Updated Kellogg Analysis

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1870

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Updated Kellogg Analysis [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2008, 11:28
Class Profile

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/Pro ... ofile.aspx


I'm using Yield average from 2004 when it was 57%. Will this have stayed relatively the same? This is the only variable that we really don't know. The breakdown of yield.

If you take Enrolled as a percentage of Applicants, you get the following:
Enrolled...calculated at posted % of 650.
<650 = 39
650 - 690 = 143
700 - 740 = 325
750-800 = 143

Applicants
<650 = 683
650 - 690 = 1381
700 - 740 = 2541
750-800 = 884

Enrolled as % of Applicants
<650 = 5.7%
650 - 690 = 10.4%
700 - 740 = 12.8%
750-800 = 16.2%

If it's a 57% yield, that means that 650 = 57% of those accepted or 1140 were accepted.

As a % of those accepted:
<650 = 3.4%
650 - 690 = 12.5%
700 - 740 = 28.5%
750-800 = 12.5%

I just took the number enrolled for each section and figured out how many would have been accepted if the yield were equal (57%) for all. I realize this is not at all accurate, but it helps give an indication as to what might be more accurate numbers.

# if Enrolled is 57% of Accepted
<650 = 68
650 - 690 = 251
700 - 740 = 570
750-800 = 251

The thing that strikes me is 68 that scored < 650. If Kellogg actually accepted 68 that scored < 650, I think they would have at least 60 enrolled. Really, it has to be a reach for those people and they know it, but they got in. I think a more realistic Yield for this group is 90%.

I think the 650 - 690 range is going to be high as well, but certainly not as high. I could see 1/3 of those being accepted to another school they really wanted to attend, or the other school that wasn't as high as Kellogg accepted them with more $$ so they opted for the less expensive after scholarships. Still others will just say "Screw scholarship, I'm going to Kellogg and will pay it back in just a few years anyway!" Yield of 85%?

700 - 740 - this group is probably going to be rather flexible because they will likley have 2 or 3 schools in the top 15 to choose from (unless they applied to just the top 6 or 7 schools only!) so i think the yield for this one would be somewhere down around 50%.

750+ is probably going to have the most flexible applicants in the entire pool for obvious reason.
50?

This totals 1148 people accepted and 650 enrolled. This would be a yield of 57%.

So what would be the acceptance rate across each section then?
Acceptance rates based on estimated yields above
<650 = 6.3%
650 - 690 = 12.2%
700 - 740 = 25.6%
750-800 = 32.4%

If you do the following:
GMAT average per section:
<650 = 625
650 - 690 = 675
700 - 740 = 725
750-800 = 765

Now multiply the average * # in each section, total all and divide by 650 = 716.8 GMAT average.

HMMMMM......
_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1437

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 12

Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Re: Updated Kellogg Analysis [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2008, 11:40
Well if you are getting accepted with a sub 650 score you must have some amazing qualities or a minority therefore other schools would be interested in you as well. So a 90% yield probably is not accurate.

If it were just people taking a shot in the dark, yea that would be a 90% yield, but those are the people who get rejected I would imagine.

The same goes for 650-690 although less-so. 85% is probably too high here as well. If you are getting accepted with a sub-700 score , you must have qualities that other top schools are looking for also.

Not sure what the right numbers are, but just my thoughts

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 12

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1870

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Re: Updated Kellogg Analysis [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2008, 11:49
You could possibly have qualities other schools are looking for, but at the same time, there are peopel that get dinged at Tuck and accepted at HBS, or Dinged at Ross and Accepted Sanford. It seems so random in many ways. The % yield according to section will probably never be released because it would really deter people from applying with a 660 that actually belong at Kellogg and are deserving.

terp26 wrote:
Well if you are getting accepted with a sub 650 score you must have some amazing qualities or a minority therefore other schools would be interested in you as well. So a 90% yield probably is not accurate.

If it were just people taking a shot in the dark, yea that would be a 90% yield, but those are the people who get rejected I would imagine.

The same goes for 650-690 although less-so. 85% is probably too high here as well. If you are getting accepted with a sub-700 score , you must have qualities that other top schools are looking for also.

Not sure what the right numbers are, but just my thoughts

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Posts: 225

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 3

Re: Updated Kellogg Analysis [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2008, 11:56
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... Siew&hl=en

here I updated the spreadsheet with the new data (a new tab)

variables you can play around with:
yield for each GMAT range (background in blue)
average GMAT assumptions for each GMAT range (background in black)

things aren't looking good at all for us 09 applicants haha

*runs to works on essays instead of wasting time with online spreadsheets*

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 402

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Re: Updated Kellogg Analysis [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2008, 15:46
wow, great job!

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Re: Updated Kellogg Analysis   [#permalink] 02 Aug 2008, 15:46
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Updating school with additional info aceman626 2 07 Jan 2008, 22:01
Updated BW profiles dosa_don 14 12 Dec 2007, 09:12
1 Ding Analysis GMATLA 0 01 May 2012, 08:22
14 Feature Update dzyubam 13 29 Dec 2008, 16:42
updates Praetorian 0 24 Sep 2008, 20:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Updated Kellogg Analysis

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: aeropower, OasisGC, bb10



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.